Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Trintech writes "According to MSNBC: 'The city of Oakland, California on Tuesday legalized large-scale marijuana cultivation for medical use and will issue up to four permits for "industrial" cultivation starting next year.
The move by the San Francisco Bay Area city aims to bring medical marijuana cultivation into the open and allow the city to profit by taxing those who grow it.
The resolution passed the city council easily after a nearly four-hour debate that pitted small-scale "garden" growers against advocates of a bigger, industrial system that would become a "Silicon Valley" of pot.' Yes, you read that right. MSNBC just compared computer chip fabrication to pot cultivation."

I'm weary and I just ain't got the time, and I'm wasted and I can't find my way home.

To hell with medical pot, when is it going to be legal for all adults? It's one of the safest psychoactive drugs there is. There is no lethal dose, there is no physical addiction (as opposed to coffee, alcohol, or tobacco), and actually prevents cancer. [sciencedaily.com] If you smoke cigarettes, you really should be smoking pot as well. [washingtonpost.com]

The laws against it cause all the problems it purports to solve, just as alcohol prohibition did. Teenagers shouldn't smoke pot [sciencedaily.com], but unlike beer, it's easier for a teen to obtain than it is for an adult. Like alcohol prohibition, it allows adulterants to be added whether on purpose or accident; you cannot regulate an illegal substance. Its prohibition finances violent gangs. Marijuana doesn't "lead to harder drugs", but its prohibition does, since the people who sell heroin and cocaine also sell marijuana. Rather than wasting tax dollars jailing dopers, it could be taxed itself.

There is no reason whatever for this plant to be against the law. The only people who the pot laws help are those who grow, import, and sell it. Anyone who is for pot being against the law is being duped or bribed by the drug cartels.

All jokes aside, commercial hemp has more applications then just narcotics/psychoactive.

Fibres from the marijuana plant produce a material stronger then cotton at a much lower cost to produce (faster growth time, higher yield per plant, able to withstand harsher environmental conditions) thus you have to oft quoted stoner conspiracy that the anti-weed movement was sponsored by America's cotton growers.

Psychological and physiological health issues are shown to be less then that of legal Alcohol and Tobacco. With Marijuana smoke carrying considerably less carcinogens then tobacco smoke, although I'd definitely be behind a dont bong and drive campaign as reaction times are slowed down more then when using alcohol.

I'd also like the US to stop pushing drug laws on other nations. I'd like a "happy" pizza in Cambodia.

Fibres from the marijuana plant produce a material stronger then cotton at a much lower cost to produce (faster growth time, higher yield per plant, able to withstand harsher environmental conditions) thus you have to oft quoted stoner conspiracy that the anti-weed movement was sponsored by America's cotton growers.

I haven't seen anyone refute this. I can imagine though that fighting the cotton growers would be about as successful as trying to kill the corn subsidies.

Fibres from the marijuana plant produce a material stronger then cotton at a much lower cost to produce (faster growth time, higher yield per plant, able to withstand harsher environmental conditions) thus you have to oft quoted stoner conspiracy that the anti-weed movement was sponsored by America's cotton growers.

I believe it was Hearst, and the soft pulp wood guys who were often seen as starting the "reefer madness" not the cotton growers.

The move to medicalize (is that a word?) marijuana will work against moves for industrial hemp.

I think this is a problem with the US Govt rather then the idea of medical marijuana growth. The tax for drugs should be on the sale of the drug itself not the cultivation. But the US Govt I think is not capable of differentiating between the marijuana plant and the use of marijuana as a narcotic.

Which really is a shame as there are variants of the plant with a THC content so low you'd have to smoke a square hectare to get high.

Yeah, I'm a strong supporter of legalizing marijuana (and most other drugs), but I think the 'medical marijuana' movement is a farce. The net result is a bunch of stoner rejects inventing various chronic conditions in order to prove to the officials that they need marijuana to make their life tolerable. How embarrassing... how degrading.

There are legitimate medical reasons to take marijuana; but I'd say at LEAST 90% of those signed up for it are lying through their teeth. Honestly, I think it's closer to 99%.

And as far as non-narcotic uses of hemp; it's a useful plant, but it's wonderful properties tend to be exaggerated by pro-pot boosters.

...but I think the 'medical marijuana' movement is a farce. The net result is a bunch of stoner rejects inventing various chronic conditions in order to prove to the officials that they need marijuana to make their life tolerable. How embarrassing... how degrading.

I think its a fairly savvy political move. For some reason the feds (and some local fiefdoms) have an irrational fear of marijuana, and puritan like values are on the rise, so the odds of marijuana ever being legalized on its own merits is slim to none. A lot of the population is nebulously hostile to legalization for vague reasons, or completely apathetic. So the only real way to get the discussion started, and to start demystifying pot is to make it public, available, and outside of the purely hedonistic "some drugs are not evil" arena. Medical marijuana has done this very well.

I really don't think many people actually buy the "needing marijuana to make life tolerable" part of medical marijuana, as much as they view it as a way to eventually for the feds to fix their point of view. Medical marijuana is a gateway drug to legalized marijuana.

You can't grow good pot in a field of industrial hemp. Industrial hemp has a large percentage of males. The males pollinate the good pot and ruin it.Actually one of the easiest ways to get rid of pot is to grow lots of low potency industrial hemp. The pollen can blow hundreds of miles and ruin all the good stuff. The only way to grow the good stuff is in heavily filtered spaces.

It is kind of a chicken and egg sort of problem. I mean, goat meat is out there, but its rare. I can find ground lamb too, but, its not something alot of people cook with, so not every store bothers, and not all the time. Ground beef? I can buy any day at any store.

People buy what they are used to, and what they know how to cook. You need to get it out there for people to get used to it to create a market for it. Of course, whats the incentive for any individual to get it out there and take initial losses h

It's not exactly a secret that marijuana use results in a diminished reaction time and loss of motor control. This is the same with alcohol or most depressants for that matter. You can take a certain amount of alcohol or other drug and remain within the safe limits for reaction time (this amount depends on the individual) but with marijuana there tends to be less of a safe zone that exists with alcohol due to the rapid rate at which marijuana is consumed (1 bong can intoxicate an individual as much as 100 ml of hard liquor in one go, plus marijuana intoxication is much faster).

I'm all in favour of decriminalisation and in some cases legalisation but we cant lie to ourselves here, marijuana is an intoxicant that has serious effects on motor skills and reactions.

Hmm, but I smell the high smell of marijuana growing being handed over to licensed only agro-corporations and individuals will be fined for attempting to grow it themselves under penalties of tax evasion. Only four licensed operation, hmm, corporate drug cartels with government lobbied grossly inflated profit margins.

Still better than throwing away billions destroying peoples lives with militaristic raids and extended prison sentences in order to protect them from 'er' destroying the lives having a 'good

Don't worry, no company will touch this and no financial institution will fund it. This whole idea has DEA bust written all over it. California can do whatever they want to legalize it but so long as it's illegal under federal statute large scale grow operations will be way too hot to touch. The interesting thing would be if the state were to grow it themselves, would pit states rights against federal drug laws.

Don't worry, no company will touch this and no financial institution will fund it. This whole idea has DEA bust written all over it. California can do whatever they want to legalize it but so long as it's illegal under federal statute large scale grow operations will be way too hot to touch. The interesting thing would be if the state were to grow it themselves, would pit states rights against federal drug laws.

Wrong! The tobacco industry is geared up, ready and waiting - including having trademarked various sale names for such products. Google "tobacco companies marijuana" if you dont believe me.

As for the Feds, how long do you think it will be that they hold out? Guarantee you they still have the methods in place to tax this, regardless of the current legality. Money will win out in this.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land and until the supreme court changes their view on the commerce clause the federal government will have a legal right to enforce federal drug statutes. Do I like it, or even agree with their flawed logic? No, of course not. The overreaching interpretation of the commerce clause is probably one of the SC decisions that it most obviously far from the framers intentions.

Why not simply let it be sold like any other product? I really don't see what the difference is between tobacco/pot compared to corn, beans and other foodstuffs. Alcohol is slightly different because if you screw it up it can have toxic side effects but really when was the last time you heard of someone going to their local farmer's market to buy an ear of corn and it had toxic side effects? A plant is a plant is a plant. I similarly don't understand having different tax rates, unless the government goes ar

Hmm, but I smell the high smell of marijuana growing being handed over to licensed only agro-corporations and individuals will be fined for attempting to grow it themselves under penalties of tax evasion.

All I smell is hypocrisy. The "small" pot growers have their cake and eat it too right now, wanting pot to remain illegal technically, keeping serious competition down, but not really enforced so that they can sell it as they do now. The fact that others are being fined and arrested for what they're getting away with doesn't bother them enough to advocate changing the laws to allow competition.

Furthermore, we have no reason to suspect there's going to be an increase in personal growing and use once the stuf

No they are still wet. Wet plants don't burn well. That's why you don't see wildfires in southern Louisiana. Usually during busts marijuana plants are up rooted, put in a pile, and use some fire source.

No, no, flamethrowers is the Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms and the Drug Enforcement Agency. The FBI doesn't do the heavy stuff anymore unless its the Hostage Rescue Team. You can't get the napalm smell out of those nice suits.

Who seriously thinks this isn't going to end with FBI agents with flamethrowers and some farmers going to jail forever?

It will end with the federal law being challenged and overturned. The 9th and 14th Amendments are clear on this. It is the right of the States to regulate those things not expressly reserved for the federal government. All your non-enumerated rights are belong to us.

but interstate commerce is domain of the federal government. Pot growing and sale is interstate commerce even if it doesn't leave the state it was grown in. Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). An enumerated right does not mean that what is being regulated is specifically stated in the Constitution. That is, you cannot say that the federal government cannot regulate drugs, because it does not specifically say they can regulate drugs in the Constitution.

Pot growing and sale is interstate commerce even if it doesn't leave the state it was grown in.

No, it isn't. The courts maintain the fiction that it is, but the fiction is absurd. It's no more valid than the occasional claims that <insert objectionable speech here> isn't really speech but action.

That is, you cannot say that the federal government cannot regulate drugs, because it does not specifically say they can regulate drugs in the Constitution.

I think you're probably correct in that this is how the federal government is trying to justify their authority. I believe, however, that they will fail.

Cannibis was demonized in the 20th Century by racists. Once it is exposed that the plant is no threat to civilized society, that it is a wealth of medicene, and a ton of other really great uses, and that most citizens that are sick that cannibis can help want it, then the court will be swayed and the law will change.

No anti-drug attorney anywhere could convince any court that the Founders would have wanted cannibis to be illegal. Every important document from the era of the Founders was drafted on hemp paper. They all wore hemp clothes and used hemp rope. And most of the Founders smoked pot, for entertainment purposes or for various ailments. George Washington was obsessed with his pot crop.

Marijuana is not like cocaine. It's not like heroin, or even legal drugs that are abused like oxycontin. The Federal law banning marijuana makes about as much sense as banning coffee. It may be abused, but it's abuse won't be any more detrimental to society than other abused drugs. In fact, it will likely be less detrimental than alcohol, and that's already legal. But this negative effect must be weighed against the positive effect, which is tremendous. Marijuana curbs suffering. The DEA's own administrative law judge did not see why marijuana should be illegal. He ruled it should be a scheduled drug, and with expert testimony, wished to place it at schedule IV, rather than schedule I where it is now. The DEA overuled their own judge. The DEA won't be able to overrule the Supreme Court.

In fact, it will likely be less detrimental than alcohol, and that's already legal.

A lot of people get belligerent and violent when drunk. I'd rather have them stoned. For the rest of us normal people, I don't know why the government would or even should care if I have a drink or a couple of puffs of pot. They should just mind their own business and go find something useful to occupy themselves with. To be frank I think the illicit market for dealing in contraband is far more detrimental than the contraband itself - at least for things like booze and pot. People get killed in turf wars to control the illicit trade and to show off their third-world peasant machismo, not from smoking pot.

Because of the children. Won't you think of the children? And the terrorists. And the way black men ply white women with jazz and marijuana then have their dastardly way with them.(And why yes, that is exactly what some clown in the federal government said a few decades ago about pot as a reason it should be made illegal.)

Both California and the Federal Gov are hurting for a source or revenue. Taxation will only get so far based on the Laffer curve. I honestly think we are at the cusp of legalizing pot across the board, only be taxed heavily in the process. Which of course is why they would do it in the first place.

Don't move yet. The USA at the federal government level doesn't approve of this (though they are currently turning an INFORMAL blind eye to it), and may well jail anyone who actually tries to run an industrial scale marijuana farm.

That doesn't matter according to the current interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

The production and sale of pot in California affects the supply and demand within the state, and therefore affects the interstate illegal trade of pot.

It is the same reason that the interstate commerce clause can be used to jail you for building your own automatic weapon. Because by building it yourself, you didn't buy it from a hypothetical supplier that may have been in another state.

If I could go back and tell our founding fathers just one thing I think it would be "the commerce clause sucks royally". It seems to me that the vast majority of the really bad Supreme Court decisions are based on it - it seems that one can rationalize it to allow the feds to regulate nearly *anything*.

Simply look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause [wikipedia.org], search for the "civil rights" header and read from there. They can regulate health clubs because the health bars they sell are manufactured in othe

When a Republican administration gets back in, they're very likely to start enforcing it again.

As an ancient Vulcan proverb puts it "only Nixon could go to China". I think only a Republican administration could legalize pot at the federal level. The libertarian-leaning Republicans support this, too - heck, Buckley started arguing against the "war on drugs" in the 80s. I don't have much hope that the Tea Party folks will bring sense to the GOP regarding smaller government, but at least it's something to be hopeful about.

The Tea Party folks are exactly the group within the Republicans who would get behind legalization.

The problem with this idea is that its very hard to tell where the grass ends and the Astroturf begins in the modern tea party movement. The original core of the tea party would be a great ally to legalization, but a lot of the movement has been taken over by the same old creepy Republicans.

It is amusing that legalization is an issue that both the far left, and far right could stand behind though, you just ru

It is amusing that legalization is an issue that both the far left, and far right could stand behind though, you just run into problems towards the middle.

Yes, for some reason the more fringe elements in politics tend to respond easier to obviously good ideas, and the even the idiots out on the edges realize that them supporting a Good Thing will most likely lead to greater public support...

The problem is mostly getting them to join forces over issues like this.

Is it possible that in 2010, there's a sign that our society might actually be growing up a little bit? It's something small, but a good sign. I'm not a pot smoker, but the notion that there's been this prohibition on a harmless plant with medicinal and recreational uses is ridiculous. There are only a few things worse than a moralistic, hypocritical society. Saying that marijuana is evil, dangerous and should be illegal while tobacco and alcohol are huge industries with all the social and health problems they create is both moralistic and hypocritical. Worse, it's a hypocrisy fueled by the fact that so much money is involved - money that pays lobbyists who buy politicians.

There are reasonable arguments on both sides of the debate over the illegality of crystal meth, cocaine, and some other substances. These are drugs that have had ruinous effects on parts of our society. But the debate over marijuana should have been over 50 years ago.

Next up should be a re-thinking of the laws regarding pain medication, such as opiates and synthetics. Making their sale on the street illegal is one thing, but the fact that doctors are afraid to prescribe them, even in cases where they would be the best treatment for their patients is a shame. We've got this weird proscription against substances that could make us feel better, even for sick or terminal patients, that comes from a moralistic, Puritan streak that runs through this country. It's time to jettison that relic.

Next up should be a re-thinking of the laws regarding pain medication, such as opiates and synthetics.

Amen. I get terrible "migraines" (doctor's word, not mine -- I just say headaches) and about 20% of the time a timely Midrin will help, but if that fails or I'm not timely, the only thing that helps is opiates.

My doctor gives me *40* Percocets every six months, along with a bullshit lecture on how habit-forming they are, etc etc etc. It's hardly adequate -- I fall short by about 1-2 months and refuse to go back for fear of being labeled and cut off forever or have him force shit like daily tricyclic antidepressants on me.

At my last visit I complained mildly that while effective, the peak duration of pain relief was fairly short, forcing me to take more pills -- was there something with a longer, sustained release? "No, that'd be just more narcotics, and we'll stay where we're at." Meanwhile, a 3 day headache is like 1/4 of my SIX MONTH supply.

I'm pretty sure I could take 40 Percocets in a MONTH and never develop an addiction, but they'd rather have you suffer than "risk" addiction.

Have you tried botox? Seriously - botox works incredibly well for many people with migranes. It's not addictive, you only need a treatment every 2-3 months, maybe even less frequently. Dunno how much you pay for pain meds, what with copays and all, but 100% out of pocket, botox ought to be significantly less than $500 per treatment - a few years back it was in the ~$300 range if you shopped around. I've heard that it's become less popular for cosmetic uses (not really sure why, maybe fads change, maybe

Is it possible that in 2010, there's a sign that our society might actually be growing up a little bit?

No, its just the economic downturn's effect on tax revenues is all. One of the major reasons prohibition finally came to an end too - in the decade or so prior to prohibition roughly 40% of the country's tax revenues were from the sale of alcohol.

Ever wonder why it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but the feds can ban any old drug they feel like without even a vote of the legislative branch nowadays?

Just as a question, why is it any business of the government what chemicals an adult consumes? There are plenty of heroin users in the UK who have been using heroin and going to work each day and living a nice life. Most of the horror stories with the various drugs are related to the fact the drugs are illegal and cost a great deal of money which leads the users to do all kinds of things to get their fix. If joe crackhead could buy his rock like willie the wino buys his beer, at the same approximate price per high, there would be few horror stories, just as winos don't need to turn tricks and rob people, neither would drug addicts.

I don't know if you're serious or not, but that's completely ridiculous for pot quite honestly. and most studies on pot and driving actually showed that people were more cautious, it does not have the same type of coordination effects of alcohol regardless of what some people may tell you.

quite honestly any restrictions on pot if it were made legal i'd expect to be equal or less than alcohol, since alcohol is a much more dangerous drug anyway.

I've been a smoker of cigarettes and herb since my late teens. The weed I can take or leave. I've gone through times when I would wake-and-bake and stay high all day for months on end, times when I would get high once or twice a month, and times when I haven't smoked any at all for years on end.

While it is true that you build up a bit of a tolerance after you've been smoking hard and long, there are absolutely no withdrawal symptoms when you stop. Even when you go from being constantly stoned to completely dry, you can quit and not have cravings.

Tobacco is completely the opposite. If I go more than a few hours without a smoke, I'm already hating life. I have quit three times, all of them for several months, but the craving for the nicotine rush just never seemed to go away. It really does suck.

Nicotine is highly toxic, and just a small drop of the pure stuff on the tongue can easily be fatal. With THC, however, you can consume an entire gram of the pure shit and you'll just get really, REALLY stoned. (That's hard to do by smoking, but not so hard to do if you're eating it...)

I remember a very vivid dream from my youth, in which I went into a gas station and bought a pack of Marlboro joints. They looked like cigarettes, and even had filters, and the box looked like a pack of Marlboro 100s except in deep green instead of red.

I think it's time we quit being stupid about the whole thing and flat-out make MJ be equally as legal and equally as commoditized as tobacco. But I'm happy for the baby steps. If it has to be "medicine" for "sick people" then so be it; eventually it'll be legal and commercialized. I guess when it comes right down to it we are ALL terminally ill and in chronic pain. It's just some of us are more immediately terminal and in more pain than others. But we all have pain and we are all gonna die.

If it has to be "medicine" for "sick people" then so be it; eventually it'll be legal and commercialized.

During prohibition they had the same loophole - you could get a prescription for alcohol for medicinal purposes.Walgreens went from ~10 stores to ~400 stores during the decade of prohibition and it wasn't by selling milkshakes.

I don't know about where you live, but around here drugs are pretty readily available, yet "everyone" does not do drugs.

A. Be 25B. Pass a several year course of drug education, from health issues to manufacture.C. Obtain a license from your stateD. Restrict use to private placesE. Don't drive while doing it, or around the time you're doing it

There are people who believe the same rules should not apply to firearms, which are designed and manufactured to be lethal, yet should apply to marijuana, which as far as I know has only been lethal to extra-large bags of LAY'S® Kettle Cooked Harvest Ranch Flavored Potato Chips.

A: I think 18 is a more sensible age. In fact I think we should drop the drinking age to 18 (at least) as well. Our current situation of scattering the ages of when things are legal really diminishes the concept of becoming an adult and I think is one of the main reasons we have so many people who never seem to grow up. They never have a defining moment that says "Now you are an adult, act like one." In fact, arguments could be made for pus

"We all remember smart kids from high school that wasted their lives on pot.

Who is "we", Kemosabe? I partied with many of the (other) smart kids who went on to lead full, happy lives. Some of the dumbasses smoked too much, and drank too much, and would have been losers even without chemical recreation.

In the 1970s, there were Head Shops on many street corners and my generation smoked harder than a steam locomotive. No problem.

As someone who grew up in Northern California proper (and now lives in Silicon Valley), I must protest. We already have our "Silicon Valley" of maryjane -- it's called the Emerald Triangle [wikipedia.org]. Not to mention, my county has already decriminalized cultivation of the good herb (grep for "Measure G" [wikipedia.org]), at least for personal use.

Although, it would be illegal to grow GMO weed there (search for "Measure H" [wikipedia.org]).

How long until these morons realize the reason it's called "WEED" is because it IS a weed. You can easily grow it in your backyard and a single, well maintained plant can keep even the heaviest smoker in pot all year long. Grow 2 or 3 and its enough for the whole family and you really don't have to do much to take care of it. The only reason the price for pot is even as high as it is now is the fact that its illegal. They aren't going to make squat on taxes on pot, because once it's legal its going to be gr

Beer still takes a lot of work and equipment... Weed is virtually the only drug that requires no infrastructure. The markets for alcohol and other drugs will diminish significantly. Those industries will not be happy about this. That would include the law enforcement and prison industries.. Good-bye huge budgets for those guys...

I'm all for legalizing pot, and I have zero issues with people who smoke marijuana. But with more and more legalization becoming a reality, I'm starting to wonder when places that do drug tests on employees will start to lighten up and quit testing for marijuana. I like to smoke now and again, but don't do it regularly because I don't want to fail a random test, and have laid off completely for weeks to get a job. I'm not a hardcore smoke so this isn't a huge deal to me, but it'd be nice to know I could be somewhere and toke legally AND definitely keep my job.

I find it completely abusive requiring drug tests for any jobs, except maybe if your job requires driving or heavy machine handling. Otherwise, what the hell as my company to do with what I do in my free time? Sure, drugs can affect my performance, but in that case they can fire me for not producing what I should; does it matter to know why?

Here in Portugal some companies are starting to do the same, and there was a politician that wrote an opinion piece where he said "surely no one is against this measure". What the hell? I'm against it! And so should be any person who values privacy. If I'm not putting others' safety at risk, stay the hell away from my blood.

Here in Portugal some companies are starting to do the same, and there was a politician that wrote an opinion piece where he said "surely no one is against this measure".

What your politician is trying to do is demonise drugs in the same way as terrorism and paedophilia - the next logical statement were you to publicly say "I'm against it" would be something along the lines of "You must be a drug-addled junkie" or "Are you in favour of more drug addicts in our society?".

I think governments get that trying to stop it is a colossal waste in an era of shrinking revenue and resources and that legalizing it enables a revenue source that has thus been untapped.

I don't think the Feds will necessarily roll over, but the smart states will realize that if they get on top of it before it becomes Federalized they can collect pretty much all the taxes on it -- production, wholesale, retail, plus licensing fees to growers, wholesalers and retailers; smart regulations will ensure only in

What this really concerns is big business shutting out small scale farmers. Only four farms are being allowed essentially shutting out small growers. That didn't take long. It's sad because small family farms could actually make a profit growing pot but there's simply too much profit involved to allow small farmers to be allowed to play. I wonder how much lobbying went into this decision?

The ONLY reason they're doing this is because they believe they can get ahead of the curve when California legalizes marijuana. They want the tax revenue and nothing more. This is not about freedom or fighting for what's right.

Frankly the dominance of tax revenue in the discussion of legalization disgusts me.

I'm just waiting for a press release from Snoop Dogg - btw I did check his twitter account before posting this - nothing...... yet!!!.

FOR PRESS RELEASE. Oakland, CA - Acclaimed rap star Snoop Dogg, a multi-platinum record seller, has today announced that he is moving to Oakland, California. Snoop would like to tell his fans - "the shizzle is more growing opportunities for my rap in Oaktown. Ain't nothing growin' where I am. You know, I need more green for my raps.". Snoop hopes his fans can support him while he waits for the growing opportunities in Oakland to help him record his next album.

Is there much chance that major fields of pot being grown will result in pot plants showing up all over the place? I'm imagining the seeds being carried about all over through the wind, birdshit, etc. It worked for Monsanto after all.

We all know that inhaling burning plant material creates by-products such as: tar, ash, CO2, carbon monoxide and other gases & carcinogenic elements, because so much time and money has been spent on proving this with tobacco. Nobody ever talks about the strain legalizing it would put on the health care system. Clearly it would contribute to some people getting cancer

and don't give me that bullshit you read on the inside of the Cypress Hill CD that there has never been a documented death from smoking marijuana.

So you have a citation, then?

I do realize that a casual marijuana smoker does smoke far less often than even a light cigarette smoker, but how many strait up potheads are there to the casual 1 gram or less a day smokers? 100 to 1?

Logical fallacy: misdirection. This is irrelevant.

Your guess is as good as mine, I just think if we are going to be realistic about this issue we should also be genuine with our intent to improve our quality of life.

Which is why you've chosen to spread FUD when in fact people have talked and are talking about the potential impact on the health system and finding that it would be positive. There can only be one reason why you would ignore the health benefits in the context of a conversation which is supposedly about the impact (or in your words, "strain") that it might put on the health care system, and that is that you are pus

I stopped reading after "Marijuana use prior to injury was determined prospectively in 1023 patients injured as the result of vehicular (67.6%) and nonvehicular (32.4%) trauma.". Do you know why? Because those aren't "marijuana deaths" any more than me smoking a cigarette and jumping of a building is a "tobacco death". When people talk about "marijuana deaths" in this context they mean overdoses or causes of deaths otherwise directly attributable to marijuana use, not "he was an idiot, got high, drove off a

You're talking about traffic deaths, we're talking about marijuana deaths. 85,000 people die every year in the USA alone directly due to consumption of alcohol, which is to say dying of alcohol poisoning or choking on vomit. Now, find a real citation, or admit that you're spreading FUD.

You are paranoid, I'm not against you sir. I push no agenda

You are indeed attempting to push an anti-marijuana agenda with a dearth of facts. Hit up your local dictionary if you don't believe me.

It is a miracle drug without a doubt. It is not a cure though.

Actually, there are indications that it not only reduces lung cancer risk, but also fights various other cancers. And cancer is one of those things that you don't really cure, you just fight off individual cancers or not. Even most people who die of something other than cancer have had cancer and beat it, often multiple times. It happens on a small scale all the time and you don't even notice.

Legal recreational use will create unforeseen problems, while perhaps minor, it will not result in world peace.

Now you're really attacking a straw man. Are you addicted to logical fallacy?

What you say is somewhat true. Fortunately smoking is not the only way (or the best way) to consume Cannabis. You can vaporize, which involves no smoke or carcinogenic tars or you can cook it any number of ways.

Brownies, cookies and other baked goods. Maybe even a tossed salad with a garnish of buds. Smoking and inhaling is totally not required. For those who are worried about adverse effects of smoking on health, ingestion should do just fine.

Just fully legalize it and leave it like that. The idea of "Medical Marijuana" is simply stupid. Let pot smokers buy pot legitimately and let the currency circulate on real goods rather than on the black market. Really, why is there such opposition to letting it be sold like cigarettes with smoking/driving restrictions like alcohol.

And no, for the record I'm not a smoker, pot or otherwise, never tried it, never will. But thats just it, why should I have my tax dollars wasted on "enforcement" that just m

you can not get addicted to it like hard drugs (heroin, cocaine, meth & etc),

I think the words you are looking for are "chemically dependent". There is no measurable dependency, unlike tobacco.

Many forms of addiction are entirely psychological such as alcoholism and gambling addictions and this depends on the kind of person taking the drug (thus blanket bans are not productive). It's ignorant to say that there is no risk, just as it's ignorant to say that dope will make you crazy and kill your fam